Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment So, you clearly know what numbers are, but... (Score 1) 201

1. Did you factor in that your home is a heavily leveraged investment? Yes you are paying more interest in the city, but you also have a more valuable asset; an asset that appreciates. You get to keep the appreciation and can pay the bank interest in inflated dollars.

2. Did you calculate the cost of owning a car (maintenance, insurance, speeding tickets, registration, gas)? because not needing to own a car (or cars) in the city helps to offset some of the increased living expense.

3. What about the cost of commuting, both in time and money?

Do the math. People in cities pay more to live in a smaller location--but 20 years down the road they typically have a higher net worth because the increased expense is towards an appreciating asset, rather than spent on consumables (gas) or depreciating assets (cars, jet skis, motorcycles, and [in some cases] over-built houses for the area). People who live in cities are also healthier (due to more walking and less time sitting in traffic).

Comment When I get bored I go to one of several museums (Score 1) 201

or to the movies, the ballet, the opera, plays, musicals, clubs, concerts, parks, dog parks, botanic gardens, thousands of different restaurants, or just take a nice walk over the Brooklyn Bridge, or ride the ferry to Governor's island.

But yeah, blowing up a tree with a stick of dynamite sounds cool, too. To each his own.

Comment Your reading is wrong. Because we're not robots. (Score 2) 331

The law is not a program, human beings aren't computers. English is not a programming language.

Human languages have some ambiguity and laws cannot anticipate every scenario, but that's totally okay because (a) humans [as opposed to computers] are spectacularly equipped to solve fuzzy logic problems, and (b) our legal system has a robust framework for handling these ambiguities.

It's desirable to remove ambiguity in the law where reasonable because it is more efficient than going through the court system--but there's no seg fault just because some law has some kind of ambiguity in it.

Because we're not robots.

Comment But it wasn't better in every single way, was it? (Score 1) 160

The car had higher initial capital cost, it required special fuel (you couldn't just feed it hay), and it couldn't be bred to create more cars.

Similarly electric cars are more pleasant in some ways: you can charge it at home over night (no more trips to the gas station a couple times a week), less polluting, quieter, quicker, cheaper on a per-mile basis...but they aren't UNIFORMLY better.

Your assumption that a new technology has to be UNIFORMLY better to be successful is silly.

Comment All technology is a refinement of previous tech (Score 2) 114

This speaks to the /. crowd not really understanding what "technology" is.

Do you think Thomas Edison really "invented" the light bulb out of thin air?

New technology is pretty much always a slight improvement from some previous tech. Marketable consumer technology makes its improvements in things that consumers care about (i.e., getting rid of those bugs and kinks--and this isn't easy, btw, try it someday). Apple wins in the market because they are (a) trying to solve the technology problems that matter most to consumers, and (b) they're better at solving those tech problems than their competitors.

If it was easy (or just a matter of "marketing") then every other company would do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

You may call me by my name, Wirth, or by my value, Worth. - Nicklaus Wirth